Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Северная Война - Взлеты и падения - Extra History - #5" video.

Indeed. The king even had a fire fight and killed a bunch of turks when they wanted him to leave. But yet still they took the orders of not harming Charles seriously. As a Swede I wouldn't condemn them if they had killed that asshole on the spot.
224
The Swedish soil was crappy compared to the harvest to seed ratio seen in England, France and Holland. The people was poor. The population was tiny in size. And much of Swedens emergence as also had to do with mighty neigbouring countries was in a position of temporary inner weakness. And that was the case of Poland, and Russia, and Germany... and also to a smaller extent Denmark as well. So I'm rather impressed that Sweden could reach the levels of power that it gained. But what makes it so hard to see the future fate of Sweden is that Europe could have easily just have looked so differently if just Frederick the Great had died, if Napoleon failed in his project of taking over Europe. And who knows what would have happened if Poltava had become a Swedish victory? Maybe Ukraine and the Ottomans would have joined the war on Swedish side, and tsar Peter who already was extremely unpopular in Russia for his western modernisation reforms might have been executed by his own people. And what would have happened if Norway fell into Swedish hands with Charles invasion? hard to tell
15
Poltava got a special place in Swedish history. Its kind of our Gettysburg, Waterloo or Stalingrad so to say.
14
The thing is that Sweden would not have to crush the Russian army completly. Just as the Russian army in world war1 was still huge when a rebellion and a civil war broke out. And had Russia lost all will to fight, then the war would be over.
3
I think this discussion already have become too far-fetched and urealistic. Napoleon happened because of the French revolution, and the French revolution happened because of France's shitty economy, and France shitty economy happened because of war debts it gained by the Seven years war. And Prussia, Austria, and Russia could solve their debt problems by improving their economy's by stealing Polish land. And with Sweden into the Seven years war things would have been very different (if it would ever happened at all). - There would be no participation of Poland since Charles had turned it into a vassal puppet state, and Sweden would have refused to share it with other countries. - And Frederick the Great's kingdom was only saved from destruction from the new Russian monarch, Peter III of Russia, who was a huge fanboy of Frederick the Great and made an immidieate peace treaty with him, and even planned to let Russian troops side with Prussia in the Seven years war. And if Russia never existed. Then this event would never have happened either. And had France won the Seven years war against Prussia and England, then would have never been any loss of North America and huge war debts, which means that the French revolution would never have happened, and therefore there would not be any Napoleon Bonaparte as the ruler of France, and much less the ruler of Europe.
3
The army of the 30 years war consisted much of mercenaries. But the armies of the great Northern war consisted mostly of Swedes and a smaller number of finns.
2
vi borde återuppprätta banden till vår östra rikshalva, och vår västra också för den delen. var ju trots allt vikingarna som upptäckte usa först
2
Dom får väl också vara med i klubben om dom vill :)
2
Sweden was already pacifist when Peter the Great declared war. Not so much because of idealism, as because of realism. The country had been fighting wars almost non-stop for over a hundred years. So the country needed a paus. It had conquered enough land and needed to consolidate all its conquests. Sweden had no offensive military plans in their mind at this point. It rather hoped to stay out of any war. And this was also one of the last advices Charles father gave his son the last day before he died. Sweden was in a terrible dilemma. It was too weak to fight Russia, Denmark, and Saxony-Poland all at once on its own. And joining a military alliance, with say France would of course solve that problem, but it would also create another one - Sweden would be drawn into many pointless wars on behalf on warmongering France. Which was not in Swedens best interest. The country just wished to be left alone and not getting involved in another war the next hundred years or so.
2
To me it seems like Sweden would have many enemies both inside and outside it borders if it managed to take Denmark-Norway, and keep its land Finland, Germany and the Baltics. And even with this impressive amount square kilometres of territory, the country would still be completly underpowered in terms of manpower and money in the game of international politics. The Swedish empire had 2,500.000 inhabitants while Denmark Norway had about 1,500.000... so its just 4.000.000 people in total that the Swedish empire would have. As a comparison did France have a population of 21 million. Russia 15 million. Turkey 25 million. Holy Roman Empire had 15 million. England 9 million. And Spain 55 million. So if a bunch of mighty countries had band up they could have easily torn the apart the Great Scandinavian Empire. Germany and Russia would certainly been happy to see this threat to them dismantled. And many sea powers would also like to see Swedens monopoly power over the Baltic trade route broken. Sweden could of course have allied themselves with France, but I guess even that couldn't save the Scandinavian empire in the long run.
1
German states such as Brandenburg would feel more threatened than ever and turn to Austria and the holy Roman empire for its defence for its independence. Remember, Brandenburg and Saxony joined Austria against Sweden during the 30 years war. And both of them also fought against Sweden later on. And Russia had enormous manpower resources at its disposal. What was most striking to me when I read this book: https://ospreypublishing.com/russian-army-of-the-seven-years-war-1-pb Was that Russia was at war almost every year during the 1700s, and lost 100.000 - 200.000 men for each yearly military campaign they participated in... they could one year lose 50.000 men against Sweden, another year lose 200.000 men against the Ottomans, and then they could fight the Prussians and lose a hundred thousand more. So the question is, could Sweden keep on losing men like the Russians did time and time again? And the answer is of course not. And no, I don't consider the Ottomans as an ally. And France was an ally, but one shouldn't forget either that it was Napoleon that made us lose Finland to the Russians. So I can definatly see that Russia and Germany would gang up against Sweden, and the country being drawn into war with more powers as well if we ally ourselves with France. It would basicly just being another world war just like the Thirty years war, the war of successions, Seven years war, the American war of liberation and Napoleon wars etc.
1
I'm confused when did all of this swap to the seven years war?" The Seven years war is only interesting so far as it led to a chain of events that ended up in Napoleon. "Mercenaries was a big part of war so the population isn't everything" Mercenaries cost money, and richer more populated countries could certainly afford more troops than Sweden could. "Sweden had an influx of german and dutch immigrants" 2000 wallons immigrated to Sweden over a 60 year period.........I wouldn't call that immigration important when it is compared to the large populations of France and the Holy Roman empire. " if Sweden would have remained strong odds are that Prussia would not have risen to the power they did" Even if not, they would still have a large, well diciplined and extremely well drilled army. And all German states would probably joined up behind the Holy Roman empire in case of a war broke out. Austria would support Prussia and vice verse. "according to me for Sweden to have remained a great power of europe they would have to bene extremely lucky and almost all plans had to go according to plan" I think Sweden could have become a great power (in the real sense of the word) in the short run. And one could argue that it could have ended up as the most powerful country in the world under Gustavus Adolfhus. But I also think that Sweden was fighting against the clock. Sweden was great power for only 200 years from mid 1500 to mid 1700, and much of the Swedish expansionism during this time period was possible thanks to inner weaknesses of our neighbouring empires, Russia, Poland and Germany had their peoples fighting each other.. and was became an easy prey for our superior military. Likewise was Denmark a bit unstable for this time period. Sweden was also for a short period of time blessed with great leaders and organizers - Gustav Vasa, Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XII, Charles XI and Charles IX. But this luck would eventually run out, like it did for other countries. And Swedens scarce resources wouldn't allow us fuck up once. While Russia easily could lose an army and two.
1
Sweden was forced into this war, and the king didn't wanna sacrifice any land that his ancestors had fought to gain. And it is easy to be clever in hindsight. But could Sweden really had been better off with another King? I don't think so. Had Sweden just sacrificed some land, our neighbours would just had taken, more, and more, and moar. So Charles did the only thing there was to do: Fight. And he was a brave man who always fought in the front alongside his own men and inspired them. And his bravery and boldness helped the Swedish army to be more victorious than what a normal monarch would. Of course he could have made peace with Russia in 1708, when Peter almost wanted to give up the war and offered peace in exchange for only keeping his conquest of St. Petersburg. But Charles refused. And why would he accept such an offer? The Russians had lost every battle since the start of the war. And why should he not get back what others had stolen from him? One last victory was all what was needed. Then a rebellion would get rid of the unpopular Tsar, and Sweden could have gotten peace on favourable terms.
1
Immature rulers was the normal in the old days when people died young. And one could say its still the normal among the leaders of today. I would say that Charles was one of the better kings Sweden had. He was certainly above average. While Queen Kristina, Johan III and Gustav IV Adolf were kind of shitty monarchs. Who were deeply religious, wasteful with money, and weak assed idiots who rather pleased the nobility than serving the interest of the nation. Kristina not only gave back war booty to our enemies without anything in return, but she even sold off sacred Swedish historical documents and treasures for a price below their real value. And the Swedish taxpayers had to spend enourmous amounts of money to buy them back because of her high treason. Had she been alive today I would have wanted to she her executed for high treason.
1
From what I understand did the Swedish part of the Swedish army compose of 18000 infantry and 8000 horsemen, while the Finnish part of the Swedish army was made up of 7 infantry regiments of 7000 men and 3 cavalry regiments with 3000 men each, plus an extra squadron of dragoons of 313 men. "I egentliga Sverige bestod de indelta förbanden av femton infanteriregementen (inklusive Jämtlands dragonregemente), sju kavalleriregementen, ett kavallerikompani och en dragonskvadron. Allt som allt 18 000 man infanteri och 8 000 beridna soldater. I Finland bestod indelningsverket av sju infanteriregementen (7 000 man), tre kavalleriregementen (3 000 man) och en dragonskvadron (313 man)" http://www.tacitus.nu/karoliner/armeer/sverige/organisation.htm For more exact numbers per regiment. http://www.tacitus.nu/karoliner/armeer/sverige/index.htm
1
Agreed. The should take a sabre and a horse and lead the charge
1
No really. According to the Lisbon treaty, Sweden is obliged to defend other EU countries if they are under attack.
1
Karl is his real name. While the brits for some strange reason calls him charles.
1
Most likely a Norwegian solidier. But some conspiracy theories says it was some Swede. Possibly someone with ties to king Fredrik who took the throne after he Charles died.
1
He could just have turned his head to the side when things happened, or the bullet could have bounced. Who knows? Personally I don't think he got murdered.
1
Karl är en av de största kungarna i Svensk historia och den bäst kända kungen i svensk historia. I alla fall här i Sverige. Tyvärr har det blivit kontroversiellt att prata om honom. Svenska nationalister höjer honom till skyarna som en hjälte konung, medans en del vänsterfolk kallar honom för en galning som älskar krig och sket i sitt eget folks lidande. Att han var som en Hitler eller en Pol Pot. Men naturligtvis var han inte något av det där. Han byggde inga utrotningsläger och han krigade för att han inte hade något annat val. Invasionen av Norge är väl ett undantag. Han befann sig också tillsammans med sina soldater i stridens hetta. Han var en krigarkung. Men man kan inte beskylla honom för alla krig, då det var Danmark, Sachsen-Polen och Ryssland som angrep Sverige... och senare anföll också Preussen och Hannover. Sverige fick mobilisera varenda sista reserv av manskap och pengar för att överleva, och vi lyckades ha tur att vinna många slag. Så landet klarade sig. Han startade ett anfallskrig mot Norge. Men det är ju knappast något unikt med anfallskrig på den här tiden. Det var något vanligt bland Europas kungar på den här tiden, och Danmark-Norge låg länge i luven med Sverige. Så i fall man en gång för alla krossade den Danska arvsfienden så skulle det underlätta för Sveriges ställning som stormakt. 1718 hade många år av krigande gjort att många svenskar var trötta på krigande. Många soldater hade dött och mycket pengar hade fått tas ut i skatter. Och många män hade fått vara borta i från sina hem i åratal för att vara ute och kriga. Så kanske var det då en svensk som sköt Karl. Men det kan också ha varit en Norsk kula. Eller så kan det ha varit en politisk konspiratör, som ville ha en ny kung på Sveriges tron. Hur som helst tycker jag att det är synd att många svenskar skriker "nazism!". För de svenska soldaternas kamp förjänar att minnas. Hela landet deltog i försvaret av fosterlandet. Och våra soldater förtjänar att hedras. Men i landet Sverige så görs inte mycket sånt just. Vilket jag tycker är synd. Jag tycker att man kunde göra några filmer om hans krig i stil med patrioten, och ge ut någon skiva med svensk militärmusik från stormaktstiden, då det finns gott om svenska marscher med hög kvalité av Bellman och andra. Svensk historia är inte bara vår egen historia, utan också hela nordens, så kanske vore det intressant även för andra länder att veta lite mer om svensk historia.
1
Friedrich II, is frederick the great charlemagne is karl der grosse (karl den store)
1
According to most mainstream history books, so was Sweden a great power. But I consider such a statement only to be a half truth since the might of the Swedish empire was simply not comparable to the might of France, Spain, the Ottoman empire or Austria. But on the other hand there was no doubt that Sweden was a regional superpower in Northern Europe. And Russia, Poland and Germany feared the Swedish army more than anything else. Sweden held the control of the baltic sea in a firm grip. And the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus changed history when he joined the protestant side in the 30- years war, and saved the reformation from getting destroyed by the Spaniards who was trying to take over the world.
1
One day we will make a clone and come back...
1